Message Board
« Limited Rehearing of FERCs Bradwood Application »
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register. Nov 27, 2009, 5:44am
Welcome to the NorthCoastOregon.comopen forum board! We hope you enjoy your visit, read the comments most recently made, contribute your own.
Click here to choose a topic/article to comment under. If you want to quote a previous comment, go to that post and click on the word "quote" in the right hand corner. A box will open containing the post, type your response underneath. Registered members can edit their own comments and/or delete them. You do not have to register in order to post a comment.
NorthCoastOregon.com is not responsible for the content of the posts/comments. The author(s) of the post/comment(s) assume(s) full responsibility for what they write. Comments/posts may be deleted. Please read NorthCoastOregon.com User Agreement for further information. Use of this forum constitutes agreement to the NorthCoastOregon.com terms of usage.
General comments on articles found on the Business & Economy section of NorthCoastOregon.com, posted here
Topic: Limited Rehearing of FERCs Bradwood Application (Read 231 times)
Harvey Guest
Limited Rehearing of FERCs Bradwood Application « Thread Started on Nov 19, 2008, 1:34pm »
LNG From Alaska. Limiting pipelines and impact on Alaska's landscape. Wonder if any of the local environmentalists would look at it that way? Since they are making their money off of the hysteria of the people they stir up it is doubtful that they will kill the golden goose.
Quote:
Study shows Alaska holds another source of energy
By Erika Bolstad | McClatchy Newspapers WASHINGTON Frozen crystals packed with concentrated natural gas and buried 2,000 feet below the permafrost on Alaska's North Slope could become the next major domestic energy source, according to an assessment released last week by the U.S. Geological Survey.
The study finds that in the North Slope, frozen methane-and-water crystals known as hydrates contain as much as 85.4 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas. That's enough to heat 100 million homes for as long as 10 years, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said.
New research into how to extract those resources has moved the possibility of recovering the usable energy from the realm of "science and speculation" to that of the "actual and useful," Kempthorne said Wednesday.
Globally, "hydrates have more potential for energy than all other fossil fuels combined," he said. "This can be a paradigm shift."
Government research is beginning to show that it may be possible to extract hydrates using depressurization, a technique used to get at more conventional fuel sources. Simply boring into the ground may be enough to change the pressure to extract it, said Steve Rinehart, a spokesman for British Petroleum in Alaska. Or the pressure could be changed by pumping.
Gas hydrates exist all over the world, including offshore, but a combination of cold and pressure makes them especially prevalent in the Arctic, where there's also an existing oil and gas infrastructure to study them. The Department of Energy described them as "ice-like solids that result from the trapping of methane molecules within a lattice-like cage of water molecules." Hydrates release gaseous methane the main component of natural gas when they melt.
Kempthorne on Wednesday demonstrated the flammability of the substance with laboratory-created hydrate made by government researchers. Real hydrates, which are 164 times more concentrated than natural gas, would be far too valuable to burn, in part because core samples are so rare.
Kempthorne lit a match to a fist-sized lab sample, sending up a small flare. He also passed out small, pebble-sized samples at his news conference. When he dropped a chunk of hydrate into a glass of water, it fizzed like Alka-Seltzer. As the human hand warms it, the hydrate snaps and crackles, releasing gas and water vapor.
Two of the biggest North Slope producers, ConocoPhillips and BP, have been involved in some of the government studies. ConocoPhillips has largely been researching whether it's possible to inject carbon dioxide into wells to replace the hydrates. That also would allow the carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, to be sequestered in the wells.
BP participated in government studies last year that drilled for core samples of hydrates. So far, there have been no tests of producing hydrates as commercially viable natural gas. That's next, but BP and ConocoPhillips remain skeptical. There are tremendous conventional natural-gas deposits in Alaska to consider first, Rinehart said.
"We see the potential," Rinehart said, "but our outlook is conservative at this point, because there really has not been a long-term production test."
There's room for "healthy skepticism" on the environmental front, too, said Mike Daulton, the legislative director of the National Audubon Society. The extraction could threaten the stability of the permafrost in Arctic Alaska, Daulton said, and there also are concerns that there's a risk of releasing vast amounts of methane in the process of extracting a relatively clean-burning fuel.
"There's a lot that still needs to be proven with regards to the safety," Daulton said. "There's the potential for the release of methane, which is much more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas," which contributes to global warming.
Although there are tremendous hydrate deposits in Arctic regions, they also exist in the deepwater regions of the Gulf of Mexico, an area where there are existing natural gas pipelines. Though much of the government research into hydrates has taken place in Alaska, it might be cheaper to consider the gulf first.
Other countries that import most of their fuel including Japan and India have been aggressively pursuing their own hydrate potential.
However, the possibility of recovering natural-gas hydrates in Alaska also could add to the usefulness and potential life span of a planned natural-gas pipeline that would send more conventional sources of natural gas from the North Slope to markets in the lower 48 states.
It could be part of a "balanced national-energy plan in the years ahead," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, calling it "great news for not only Alaska's future economy, but also for the nation."
Last summer, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin signed into law legislation that allows the state to issue a license to a Canadian energy company, TransCanada Corp., and pay it up to $500 million as an incentive to build the pipeline someday. The license isn't a construction contract, and federal energy regulators haven't yet approved the project, which is estimated to cost more than $30 billion.
There's an estimated 35 trillion cubic feet of proven natural-gas reserves in the North Slope of the Alaska, said Mark Myers, the director of the USGS. Another several hundred trillion feet of conventional natural gas also may be available, but is less accessible.
The possibility of keeping the proposed pipeline filled for a longer period with natural gas hydrates only "leads to more confidence to invest in the pipeline," Myers said.
And I believe that NGH(Natural Gas Hydrate) can be synthesized as well and shipped and stored with much less cost and risk than LNG could ever be.
Actually, it makes the logistics and ultra-Cost of LNG Development archaic in comparison doesn't it.
Uh, no. Since LNG tech and shipping challenges have been met and are already in service, it seems silly to toss it out for something that hasnt been developed anyway. Besides, even if were available now, it would still be converted and shipped as LNG as far as crossing oceans is concerned.
Re: Limited Rehearing of FERCs Bradwood Applicatio « Reply #3 on Nov 19, 2008, 10:37pm »
At this time there is NOTHING that has been as fully researched and is safer than Natural Gas, LNG & CNG. NOTHING. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing that is comparable for getting the best value for your money, has the LEAST impact on the environment AND on the pocket book. NOTHING.
Quote:
Medical Society seeks delay in wind farm for health investigation Opponents of a proposed four-turbine wind farm in North St. Eleanors have received the support of the Medical Society of Prince Edward Island to delay the project pending a health investigation. In a letter to the city's mayor and council, long-time Summerside physician Paul Kelly made formal application to city officials that they delay the project calling for four wind turbines on the former landfill site in St. Eleanors. ..."The Medical Society of Prince Edward Island has been asked to address the issue of setback distances associated with wind turbines," he said. November 19, 2008 by MIke Carson in The Guardian
Kulongoski is a COWARD and a NUT to allow eco-terrorists to dictate the energy policies of the State of Oregon. His Legacy to Oregon will be to leave it a welfare state.
Renewable Energy causes even more havoc then LNG « Reply #4 on Nov 19, 2008, 10:50pm »
Local laws leave wind farms out to pasture
Lawmakers will rally again for statewide regulations on wind farm development in the upcoming legislative session, and, if the standards pass, local regulation could be a thing of the past. "We will push for the (Public Service Commission of Wisconsin) to create uniform standards and regulation of wind energy for all projects," said Curt Pawlisch, an attorney with Cullen Weston Pines & Bach LLP, Madison. Pawlisch is revising wind farm standards that failed to get out of legislative committees last session. "I wouldn't say local regulations would be for naught," he said, "but the PSC would determine what works and what doesn't."
November 20, 2008 by Sean Ryan and Paul Snyder in Daily Reporter
Manitowoc Mayor Kevin Crawford, a supporter of wind energy, said state rules could end the bickering by cutting through divisive local politics that can kill wind farm projects.
Having wind farm-friendly rules statewide would be a boon for Manitowoc because they would help two local companies - Tower Tech Systems Inc., which manufactures the poles upon which turbines perch, and The Manitowoc Co. Inc., which manufactures cranes used to erect turbines.
"If the state can make it a free-trade zone for wind, that takes the local politics out of it and, to be honest, I think (local officials) will be happy to say, It's out of my hands,'" Crawford said.
Pawlisch agreed.
"The typical town or county board member didn't sign up to be an expert on siting standards and issues," he said.
But it doesn't mean the debates lack intensity. The Calumet County Board's approval of a wind farm ordinance - passed on an almost 50-50 vote - created lasting political and personal rifts, said Board Chairman Bill Barribeau.
Barribeau said it would be a luxury to avoid that kind of conflict, but said he doesn't have strong feelings for or against statewide rules.
Calumet County's new wind farm rules were approved in the middle of Midwest Wind Energy's planning to develop the Stony Ridge wind farm on 8,000 acres in the county.
The company has since expanded its plans from less than 100 megawatts to up to 140. Donahue said plans call for about 70 wind turbines, which could be built using Tower Tech and Manitowoc Co. products. The larger plan means the PSC will regulate the project; county regulations would have limited the development to 10 or 12 turbines, he said.
"As to what the actual regulations are, that's important," Donahue said. "But what's more important is knowing what they are and knowing they are not going to change in the middle of the development process."
Pawlisch said he hopes the Legislature puts together a group of stakeholders with varying opinions on wind farms as it draws up legislation in the next session. He said while some residents are opposed to turbines, state officials need to balance those concerns.
But he also said the state can't bow to pressure from wind farm opponents.
"On the last count, there were 600 megawatts of wind energy in Wisconsin stalled or foreclosed upon because of local ordinances and delays," Pawlisch said. "Putting one turbine up is about a $4 million investment. You do the math on what the state's losing out on.
"If we're missing out on any kind of economic development in this climate, people are going to have to take a good look at themselves in the mirror."
The Star's - Scientists unlock frozen natural gas « Reply #5 on Nov 20, 2008, 9:03pm »
A remote drilling rig high in the Mackenzie Delta has become the site of a breakthrough that could one day revolutionize the world's energy supply.
For the first time, Canadian and Japanese researchers have managed to efficiently produce a constant stream of natural gas from ice-like gas hydrates that, worldwide, dwarf all known fossil fuel deposits combined.
"We were able to sustain flow," said Scott Dallimore, the Geological Survey of Canada researcher in charge of the remote Mallik drilling program. "It worked."
For a decade now, Dallimore and scientists from a half-dozen other countries have been returning to a site on Richards Island on the very northwestern tip of the Northwest Territories to study methane gas hydrates.
A hydrate is created when a molecule of gas in this case, methane or natural gas is trapped by high pressures and low temperatures inside a cage of water molecules. The result is almost but not quite ice. It's more like a dry, white slush suffusing the sand and gravel 1,000 metres beneath the Mallik rig.
Heat or unsqueeze the hydrate and gas is released. Hold a core sample to your ear and it hisses.
More significant is the fact that gas hydrates concentrate 164 times the energy of the same amount of natural gas.
And gas hydrate fields are found in abundance under the coastal waters of every continent. Calculations suggest there's more energy in gas hydrates than in coal, oil and conventional gas combined.
Getting that energy to flow consistently and predictably, however, has been the problem. Using heat to release the gas works, but requires too much energy to be useful. Researchers have also been trying to release the methane by reducing the pressure on it.
Last month, the Mallik team became the first to use that method to get a steady, consistent flow.
"That went really well," said Dallimore. "We definitely demonstrated that these hydrates are responsive enough that you can sustain flow.
"We were able to take conventional technologies, modify them, and produce. That's a big step forward."
Although countries including India, China, Japan and the United States have undertaken major programs to identify gas hydrate fields, it's the first step in years toward making them productive.
The Mallik well produced fire from ice for six days at a rate lower than conventional gas but about equivalent to a coalbed methane well, Dallimore said.
This year's results prove the basic idea works, he said. The next step is a full-scale pilot project with every consideration that goes into a commercial production rig, including safety and environmental concerns, and questions regarding how much water and sediment are produced per unit of gas.
Dallimore suggests that as conventional natural gas prices increase and supplies diminish, gas hydrates could offer an alternative. They also emit less greenhouse gas than oil or coal.
So far, no Canadian agency is planning a full gas hydrate pilot project.
But Japan is planning one using data from the Mallik project. The United States Geological Survey is trying to start one with other agencies and energy companies.
"Everybody agrees this is what we need to do. It's just (a question of) where," said Brenda Pierce of the U.S. survey. "We're trying to look at doing this on the north slope of Alaska."
Commercial production of natural gas from hydrates is still a few years off, said Dallimore but perhaps not too far off.
"This stuff may fit into that medium- to longer-term world for North America. For countries like Japan and North Korea, where they have no conventional resources, it may come up quicker."
****************************
Still far from being there. The pseudo-environmentalists will fight this tooth and nail, just like they are fighting nuclear.
And I believe that NGH(Natural Gas Hydrate) can be synthesized as well and shipped and stored with much less cost and risk than LNG could ever be.
Actually, it makes the logistics and ultra-Cost of LNG Development archaic in comparison doesn't it.
Fine, fine...we'll get right on it. Now, would you be supportive of developing either Bradwood or Tongue Point as NGH conversion, storage and distribution sites?
And I believe that NGH(Natural Gas Hydrate) can be synthesized as well and shipped and stored with much less cost and risk than LNG could ever be.
Actually, it makes the logistics and ultra-Cost of LNG Development archaic in comparison doesn't it.
Fine, fine...we'll get right on it. Now, would you be supportive of developing either Bradwood or Tongue Point as NGH conversion, storage and distribution sites?
That's an excellent idea - I would imagine once NGH technology is advanced to the point of actually marketing it, the existing LNG facility could be retro-fitted to offload and regassify it.
Re: Limited Rehearing of FERCs Bradwood Applicatio « Reply #8 on Nov 21, 2008, 7:38pm »
I wonder if the NOAA biologist would give an opinion about what would happen to the fingerling salmon if we needed to dredge at Tongue Point in order to make it more accommodating for the NOAA fleet???
I lay 10:1 odds that it is the EXACT SAME biological opinion for ANY PLACE along the the banks of the Columbia River.
Because NOAA biologists are mentally retarded, obviously, if they don't know that these juvenile salmon LOVE IT when the bottom of the river is stirred up so they have MORE things to eat.
NOAA biologists are IDIOTS if they don't KNOW that the salmon LOVE the deep of the dredged river!
NOAA biologists are bought off, if they are saying that the Bradwood Landing project is in any way endangering the SALMON RUN anymore than puting in ANYTHING at that MARINE INDUSTRIAL ZONED site or any other MARINE INDUSTRIAL ZONED site along the river.
And if that is how NOAA operates I want them as far away from us as possible, not in my backyard!
Because NOAA biologists are mentally retarded, obviously, if they don't know that these juvenile salmon LOVE IT when the bottom of the river is stirred up so they have MORE things to eat.
That's right...fish love silty water...hey, before the dams were built do you think the mainstem was a clear as it is below the dams now? Not on your life it wasnt. All that silt that's now filling the mainstem resevoirs used to go all the way out to the ocean-the river, except in for briefly in AUG/SEPT, ran dirty for silt-it also protected the young'ins from predators in great numbers. Whoever tells you stirring up the river silt is bad for salmon has a reason to tell you that. A reason not based in science or truth. Prior to the dam era the Columbia drainage amounted to roughly 25 percent of the fresh water runoff for the ENTIRE North American continent. Thats a big chunk of ground getting drained there-silty water would be the rule, not the exception. But that river doesnt exist anymore. The final 2-300 miles of the mighty Columbia is now a long series of fresh water lakes which serve as settling ponds for silt that used to wash out.
And if silt/sand in the runoff is bad, why is it that all those glacier runoff fed rivers in Alaska that have mega-runs of fish are extremely silty when they aint frozen?
Nah, anyone who tells you that brief dredging ops in the lower river are decimating the salmon don't know nuts. Or else they're just lying to you
![[Home]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif)
![[Help]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif)
![[Search]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif)
![[Calendar]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/calendar.gif)
![[Login]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif)
![[Register]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif)
![[Search This Thread]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/search2.gif)
![[Reply]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/reply.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif)
Author
![[Quote]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/quote.gif)
Logged